Search

Background: Controversy exists whether prophylactic drugs are necessary in the treatment of medication overuse headache (MOH). Objectives: To determine comparative benefits and safety of available drugs for the treatment of MOH including elimination of medication overuse (MO). Methods: We systematically reviewed randomized controlled trials though an extensive literature search comparing different drug effects on MOH. A random-effect network meta-analysis was conducted to rank comparative effects of interventions. Outcome improvements from baseline include responder rate defined as ≥ 50% reduction of headache frequency, proportion of patients who revert to no acute medication overuse (nMO), and reduction in monthly headache and acute medication intake frequency. Certainty of evidence was classified using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development & Evaluation (GRADE). Results: Of 8,248 screened publications, 28 were eligible for analysis. Topiramate was found to be beneficial based on its responder rate (odds ratios [OR] 4.93), headache frequency (weighted mean difference [WMD] -5.53) and acute medication intake frequency (WMD − 6.95), with fewer safety issues (i.e., tolerability, or more adverse events) than placebo (OR 0.20). Fremanezumab, galcanezumab and botulinum toxin type A (BTA) were beneficial for increased responder rates (OR 3.46 to 3.07, 2.95, and 2.57, respectively). For reversion to nMO, eptinezumab, fremanezumab and BTA were superior to placebo (OR 2.75 to 2.64, 1.87 to1.57, and 1.55, respectively). Eptinezumab, fremanezumab, erenumab 140 mg, and BTA were more efficacious than erenumab 70 mg (OR 3.84 to 3.70, 2.60 to 2.49, 2.44 and 2.16, respectively) without differences in safety and tolerability. Conclusion: Despite lower safety and greater intolerability issues, topiramate has large beneficial effects probably on increasing responder rates, reducing headache frequency, and might reduce monthly medication intake frequency. Fremanezumab, galcanezumab, and eptinezumab are promising for increasing responder rates. For reversion to nMO, eptinezumab has large beneficial effects, fremanezumab has a smaller effect. BTA might have a moderate effect on responder rates and probably has a small effect on reversion to nMO. Trial registration: PROSPERO, CRD42021193370. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To identify and disseminate research priorities for the headache field that should be areas of research focus during the next 10 years. Background: Establishing research priorities helps focus and synergize the work of headache investigators, allowing them to reach the most important research goals more efficiently and completely. Methods: The Headache Research Priorities organizing and executive committees and working group chairs led a multistakeholder and international group of experts to develop headache research priorities. The research priorities were developed and reviewed by clinicians, scientists, people with headache, representatives from headache organizations, health‐care industry representatives, and the public. Priorities were revised and finalized after receiving feedback from members of the research priorities working groups and after a public comment period. Results: Twenty‐five research priorities across eight categories were identified: human models, animal models, pathophysiology, diagnosis and management, treatment, inequities and disparities, research workforce development, and quality of life. The priorities address research models and methods, development and optimization of outcome measures and endpoints, pain and non‐pain symptoms of primary and secondary headaches, investigations into mechanisms underlying headache attacks and chronification of headache disorders, treatment optimization, research workforce recruitment, development, expansion, and support, and inequities and disparities in the headache field. The priorities are focused enough that they help to guide headache research and broad enough that they are widely applicable to multiple headache types and various research methods. Conclusions: These research priorities serve as guidance for headache investigators when planning their research studies and as benchmarks by which the headache field can measure its progress over time. These priorities will need updating as research goals are met and new priorities arise. Plain Language Summary: The American Headache Society led a large, international, multistakeholder process to identify headache research topics that should be prioritized during the next 10 years. With input from headache clinicians, scientists, people with headache, representatives from headache organizations, health‐care industry representatives, and the public, 25 research priorities within 8 categories were identified. These research priorities can help guide headache researchers when planning their studies and as benchmarks by which the headache field can measure its progress over time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To assess rates of traversing barriers to care to access optimal clinical outcomes in people with migraine internationally. Background: People in need of medical care for migraine should consult a health care professional knowledgeable in migraine management, obtain an accurate diagnosis, and receive an individualized treatment plan, which includes scientific society guideline-recommended treatments where appropriate. Methods: The Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes-International (CaMEO-I) Study was a cross-sectional, web-based survey conducted from July 2021 through March 2022 in Canada, France, Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States (US). Respondents who met modified International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition, criteria for migraine and had Migraine Disability Assessment Scale (MIDAS) scores of ≥ 6 (i.e., mild, moderate, or severe disability) were deemed to need medical care and were included in this analysis. Minimally effective treatment required that participants were currently consulting a health care professional for headache (barrier 1), reported an accurate diagnosis (barrier 2), and reported use of minimally appropriate pharmacologic treatment (barrier 3; based on American Headache Society 2021 Consensus Statement recommendations). Proportions of respondents who successfully traversed each barrier were calculated, and chi-square tests were used to assess overall difference among countries. Results: Among 14,492 respondents with migraine, 8,330 had MIDAS scores of ≥ 6, were deemed in need of medical care, and were included in this analysis. Current headache consultation was reported by 35.1% (2926/8330) of respondents. Compared with the US, consultation rates and diagnosis rates were statistically significantly lower in all other countries except France where they were statistically significantly higher. Total appropriate treatment rates were also statistically significantly lower in all other countries compared with the US except France, which did not differ from the US. All 3 barriers were traversed by only 11.5% (955/8330) of respondents, with differences among countries (P < 0.001). Conclusions: Of people with migraine in need of medical care for migraine, less than 15% traverse all 3 barriers to care. Although rates of consultation, diagnosis, and treatment differed among countries, improvements are needed in all countries studied to reduce the global burden of migraine. Trial registration: NA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Few studies of migraine have evaluated migraine disability across multiple countries using the same methodology. Methods: This cross-sectional, web-based survey was conducted in 2021–2022 in Canada, France, Germany, Japan, UK and USA. Respondents with migraine were identified based on modified International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition, criteria. Headache features (Migraine Symptom Severity Score (MSSS, range: 0–21), presence of allodynia (Allodynia Symptom Checklist, ASC-12)) and migraine burden (Patient Health Questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4), Migraine-Specific Quality of Life questionnaire version 2.1 (MSQ v2.1), Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI) questionnaire) were evaluated. Results: Among 14,492 respondents with migraine across countries, the mean ± SD MSSS was 15.4 ± 3.2 and 48.5% (7026/14,492) of respondents had allodynia based on ASC-12. Of all respondents living with migraine, 35.5% (5146/14,492) reported moderate to severe anxiety and/or depression symptoms. Mean ± SD MSQ v2.1 Role Function–Restrictive, Role Function–Preventive and Emotional Function domain scores were 60.7 ± 22.9, 71.5 ± 23.0 and 65.1 ± 27.2, respectively. The WPAI mean ± SD percentages of respondents who missed work or worked impaired as a result of migraine were 6.8 ± 18.1% and 41.0 ± 30.1%, respectively. Conclusions: For every country surveyed, migraine was associated with high levels of symptom severity, with allodynia and with substantial burden. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: High-frequency headache/migraine (HFM) and overuse of acute medication (medication overuse [MO]) are associated with increased disability and impact. Experiencing both HFM and MO can potentially compound impacts, including stigma; however, evidence of this is limited. The objective of this report was to evaluate self-reported stigma, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), disability, and migraine symptomology in US adults with HFM + MO from the Harris Poll Migraine Report Card survey. Methods: US adults (≥ 18 yrs., no upper age limit) who screened positive for migraine per the ID Migraine™ screener completed an online survey. Participants were classified into "current HFM + MO" (≥ 8 days/month with headache/migraine and ≥ 10 days/month of acute medication use over last few months) or "previous HFM + MO" (previously experienced HFM + MO, headaches now occur ≤ 7 days/month with ≤ 9 days/month of acute medication use). Stigma, HRQoL, disability, and most bothersome symptom (MBS) were captured. The validated 8-item Stigma Scale for Chronic Illnesses (SSCI-8) assessed internal and external stigma (scores ≥ 60 are clinically significant). Raw data were weighted to the US adult population. Statistically significant differences were determined by a standard t-test of column proportions and means at the 90% (p < 0.1) and 95% (p < 0.05) confidence levels. Results: Participants (N = 550) were categorized as having current (n = 440; mean age 41.1 years; 54% female; 57% White, not Hispanic; 24% Hispanic; 11% Black, not Hispanic) or previous (n = 110; mean age 47.2 years; 49% female; 75% White, not Hispanic; 13% Hispanic; 4% Black, not Hispanic) HFM + MO. Compared to those with previous HFM + MO (21%), adults with current HFM + MO were more likely to experience clinically significant levels of stigma (47%). Men with current HFM + MO (52% compared to men with previous HFM + MO [25%] and women with current [41%] or previous [18%] HFM + MO), non-Hispanic Black (51% compared to White, not Hispanic [45%] and Hispanic [48%] current HFM + MO groups and White, not Hispanic previous HFM + MO [12%]), current HFM + MO aged 18–49 years (50% compared to those with current HFM + MO aged ≥ 50 years [33%] and those with previous HFM + MO aged 18–49 [34%] and ≥ 50 years [4%]), and employed respondents (53% current and 29% previous compared to those not employed [32% current and 12% previous]) reported higher rates of clinically significant stigma. Those with current HFM + MO were more likely to have worse HRQoL and disability due to headache/migraine. Respondents aged ≥ 50 years with current HFM + MO were more likely than respondents aged 18–49 years with current HFM + MO to indicate that their overall quality of life (66% vs. 52%) and their ability to participate in hobbies/activities they enjoy were negatively impacted by headache/migraine (61% vs. 49%). Pain-related symptoms were identified as the MBS. Conclusions: Together these data suggest that current and previous HFM + MO can be associated with undesirable outcomes, including stigma and reduced HRQoL, which were greatest among people with current HFM + MO, but still considerable for people with previous HFM + MO. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To assess the prevalence and impact of neck pain during headache among respondents with migraine in the multicountry Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes – International (CaMEO‐I) Study. Background: Neck pain among individuals with migraine is highly prevalent and contributes to disability. Methods: The CaMEO‐I was a prospective, cross‐sectional, web‐based study conducted in Canada, France, Germany, Japan, United Kingdom, and the United States. A demographically representative sample of participants from each country completed a screening survey to evaluate headache characteristics. Respondents with headache were identified as having migraine or non‐migraine headache based on modified International Classification of Headache Disorders, third edition, criteria; those with migraine completed a detailed survey with migraine‐specific assessments. Results were stratified by the presence or absence of neck pain with headache (NPWH). For these analyses, data were pooled across the six countries. Results: Of 51,969 respondents who reported headache within the past 12 months, 14,492 (27.9%) were classified as having migraine; the remaining 37,477 (72.1%) had non‐migraine headache. Overall, 9896/14,492 (68.3%) of respondents with migraine headache reported NPWH, which was significantly higher (p < 0.001) than the proportion of respondents with non‐migraine headache who reported NPWH (13,536/37,477 [36.1%]). Among respondents with migraine, moderate‐to‐severe disability was significantly more prevalent for those with NPWH versus without (47.7% [4718/9896] vs. 28.9%, p < 0.001). Respondents with NPWH versus without also had significantly greater work productivity losses, at a median (interquartile range [IQR]) of 50.0 (20.0, 71.3) vs. 30.0 (0.0, 60.0) (p < 0.001), lower quality of life (Migraine‐Specific Quality of Life questionnaire version 2.1, median [IQR] Role Function–Restrictive domain score 60.0 [42.9, 74.3] vs. 68.6 [54.3, 82.9], p < 0.001), higher prevalence of depression and anxiety symptoms (depression, 40.2% [3982/9896] vs. 28.2% [1296/4596], p < 0.001); anxiety, 41.2% [4082/9896] vs. 29.2% [1343/4596], p < 0.001), higher prevalence of cutaneous allodynia during headache (54.0% [5345/9896] vs. 36.6% [1681/4596], p < 0.001), and higher prevalence of poor acute treatment optimization (61.1% [5582/9129] vs. 53.3% [2197/4122], p < 0.001). Conclusions: Nearly 70% of respondents with migraine reported NPWH. Individuals with migraine with neck pain during their headaches had greater disability, depression, anxiety, and cutaneous allodynia (during headache) than those without neck pain during their headaches. They also had diminished quality of life and work productivity, and poorer response to acute treatment compared with those without neck pain. Plain Language Summary: We looked at data from a web‐based study of over 51,000 people across Canada, France, Germany, Japan, United Kingdom, and the United States to understand how neck pain affects people with migraine. We found that neck pain is common in people with migraine, and that those who have neck pain during their headaches have more disability, worse symptoms, more anxiety and depression, and poorer quality of life than those without neck pain. Our results show that neck pain is a serious problem for people with migraine, and it can worsen the negative impacts of migraine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To analyze data from the Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes‐International (CaMEO‐I) Study in order to characterize preventive medication use and identify preventive usage gaps among people with migraine across multiple countries. Background: Guidelines for the preventive treatment of migraine are available from scientific organizations in various countries. Although these guidelines differ among countries, eligibility for preventive treatment is generally based on monthly headache day (MHD) frequency and associated disability. The overwhelming majority of people with migraine who are eligible for preventive treatment do not receive it. Methods: The CaMEO‐I Study was a cross‐sectional, observational, web‐based panel survey study performed in six countries: Canada, France, Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States. People were invited to complete an online survey in their national language(s) to identify those with migraine according to modified International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition, criteria. People classified with migraine answered questions about current and ever use of both acute and preventive treatments for migraine. Available preventive medications for migraine differed by country. MHD frequency and associated disability data were collected. The American Headache Society (AHS) 2021 Consensus Statement algorithm was used to determine candidacy for preventive treatment (i.e., ≥3 monthly MHDs with severe disability, ≥4 MHDs with some disability, or ≥6 MHDs regardless of level of disability). Results: Among 90,613 valid completers of the screening survey, 14,492 met criteria for migraine and completed the full survey, with approximately 2400 respondents from each country. Based on the AHS consensus statement preventive treatment candidacy algorithm, averaging across countries, 36.2% (5246/14,492) of respondents with migraine qualified for preventive treatment. Most respondents (84.5% [4431/5246]) who met criteria for preventive treatment according to the AHS consensus statement were not using a preventive medication at the time of the survey. Moreover, 19.3% (2799/14,492) of respondents had ever used preventive medication (ever users); 58.1% (1625/2799) of respondents who reported ever using a preventive medication for migraine were still taking it. Of the respondents who were currently using a preventive medication, 50.2% (815/1625) still met the criteria for needing preventive treatment based on the AHS consensus statement. Conclusions: Most people with migraine who qualify for preventive treatment are not currently taking it. Additionally, many people currently taking preventive pharmacologic treatment still meet the algorithm criteria for needing preventive treatment, suggesting inadequate benefit from their current regimen. Plain Language Summary: People with migraine who experience frequent headaches or some level of disability may benefit from using a preventive medication for migraine. We collected data on the use of preventive medication for migraine in Canada, France, Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States. These data demonstrated that many people who qualified for the use of a preventive treatment in the six participating countries were not currently taking a preventive medication for migraine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This study reviewed migraine prevalence and disability gathered through epidemiologic survey studies in the United States conducted over the past three decades. We summarized these studies and evaluated changing patterns of disease prevalence and disability. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of US studies addressing the prevalence, disability, and/or burden of migraine, including both episodic migraine (EM) and chronic migraine (CM). A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) protocol was used in conjunction with the PubMed search engine. Eligible studies were published before February 2022, were conducted in the United States, included representative samples, and used a case definition of migraine based on the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD). The primary measure of disease burden was the Migraine Disability Assessment Scale (MIDAS). The MIDAS measures days lost due to migraine over 3 months in three domains and defines groups with moderate (Grade III) or severe disability (Grade IV) using cut‐scores. Results: Of the 1609 identified records, 26 publications from 11 US population‐based studies met eligibility criteria. The prevalence of migraine in the population has remained relatively consistent for the past 30 years: ranging from 11.7% to 14.7% overall, 17.1% to 19.2% in women, and 5.6% to 7.2% in men in the studies reviewed. CM prevalence is 0.91% (1.3% among women and 0.5% of men) in adults and 0.8% in adolescents. The proportion of people with migraine and moderate‐to‐severe MIDAS disability (Grades III–IV), has trended upward across studies from 22.0% in 2005 to 39.0% in 2012, to 43.2% in 2016, and 42.4% in 2018. A consistently higher proportion of women were assigned MIDAS Grades III/IV relative to men. Conclusion: The prevalence of migraine in the United States has remained stable over the past three decades while migraine‐related disability has increased. The disability trend could reflect changes in reporting, study methodology, social and societal changes, or changes in exacerbating or remediating factors that make migraine more disabling, among other hypotheses. These issues merit further investigation. Plain Language Summary: We reviewed 11 population‐based studies that adhered to the International Classification of Headache Disorders to examine the prevalence and burden of migraine in the United States. While the prevalence of migraine has remained stable at ~12% of adults for the past 30 years (with higher rates in women), the burden of migraine, including disability and impact on work, academics, and social life, appears to be increasing. The escalating burden of migraine may result from factors like increased headache frequency or changes in study methodology, indicating a need for more population studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Plain Language Summary: In the past, research indicated that a parent's mental health symptoms may impact their child's migraine status; however, these studies do not usually hold constant whether the parents themselves have migraine. This study provided new data suggesting that when parents have migraine, the connection between parents' mental health symptoms and their child's migraine status may be less pronounced. Future studies investigating the heritability of migraine and its related mental health conditions may consider this approach when recruiting study participants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate unmet needs among individuals with episodic migraine (EM) in the United States (US). Background: Data are limited on the impact of headache frequency (HF) and preventive treatment failure (TF) on the burden of migraine in the US. Methods: A retrospective, cross‐sectional analysis of 2019 National Health and Wellness Survey (NHWS) data was conducted from an opt‐in online survey that identified respondents (aged ≥18 years) in the US with self‐reported physician‐diagnosed migraine. Participants were stratified by HF (low: 0–3 days/month; moderate‐to‐high: 4–14 days/month) and prior preventive TF (preventive naive; 0–1 TF; ≥2 TFs). Comparisons were conducted between preventive TF groups using multivariable regression models controlling for patient demographic and health characteristics. Results: Among individuals with moderate‐to‐high frequency EM, the NHWS identified 397 with ≥2 TFs, 334 with 0–1 TF, and 356 as preventive naive. The 36‐item Short‐Form Health Survey (version 2) Physical Component Summary scores were significantly lower among those with ≥2 TFs, at a mean (standard error [SE]) of 41.4 [0.8] versus the preventive‐naive 46.8 [0.9] and 0–1 TF 44.5 [0.9] groups; p < 0.001 for both). Migraine Disability Assessment Scale scores were significantly higher in the ≥2 TFs, at a mean (SE) of 37.7 (3.9) versus preventive‐naive 26.8 (2.9) (p < 0.001) and 0–1 TF 30.1 (3.3) (p = 0.011) groups. The percentages of time that respondents experienced absenteeism (mean [SE] 21.6% [5.5%] vs. 13.4% [3.6%]; p = 0.022), presenteeism (mean [SE] 55.0% [8.3%] vs. 40.8% [6.5%]; p = 0.015), overall work impairment (mean [SE] 59.4% [5.6%] vs. 45.0% [4.4%]; p < 0.001), and activity impairment (mean [SE] 56.8% [1.0%] vs. 44.4% [0.9%]; p < 0.001) were significantly higher in the ≥2 TFs versus preventive‐naive group. Emergency department visits (preventive‐naive, p = 0.006; 0–1 TF, p = 0.008) and hospitalizations (p < 0.001 both) in the past 6 months were significantly higher in the ≥2 TFs group. Direct and indirect costs were significantly higher in the ≥2 TFs (mean [SE] $24,026 [3460]; $22,074 [20]) versus 0–1 TF ($10,897 [1636]; $17,965 [17]) and preventive‐naive ($11,497 [1715]; $17,167 [17]) groups (p < 0.001 for all). Results were similar in the low‐frequency EM group. Conclusions: In this NHWS analysis, individuals with more prior preventive TFs experienced significantly higher humanistic and economic burden regardless of HF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Migraine is a disabling neurologic disease that can fluctuate over time in severity, frequency, and acute medication use. Harris Poll Migraine Report Card was a US population-based survey to ascertain quantifiable distinctions amongst individuals with current versus previous high-frequency headache/migraine and acute medication overuse (HFM+AMO). The objective of this report is to compare self-reported experiences in the migraine journey of adults with HFM+AMO to those who previously experienced HFM+AMO but currently have a sustained reduction in headache/migraine frequency and acute medication use. Methods: An online survey was available to a general population panel of adults (≥18 years) with migraine per the ID Migraine™ screener. Respondents were classified into "current HFM+AMO" (within the last few months had ≥8 headache days/month and ≥10 days/month of acute medication use; n=440) or "previous HFM+AMO" (previously had HFM+AMO, but within the last few months had ≤7 headache days/month and ≤9 days/month of acute medication use; n=110). Survey questions pertained to demographics, diagnosis, living with migraine, healthcare provider (HCP) communication, and treatment. Results: Participants in the current HFM+AMO group had 15.2 monthly headache days and 17.4 days of monthly acute medication use in last few months compared to 4.2 and 4.1 days for the previous HFM+AMO group, respectively. Overall, current preventive pharmacologic treatment use was low (15-16%; P>0.1 for current vs previous) in both groups. Previous HFM+AMO respondents reported better current acute treatment optimization. More respondents with current (80%) than previous HFM+AMO (66%) expressed concern with their current health (P<0.05). More than one-third of both groups wished their HCP better understood their mental/emotional health (current 37%, previous 35%; P>0.1 for current vs previous) and 47% (current) to 54% (previous) of respondents worried about asking their HCP too many questions (P>0.1 for current vs previous). Conclusion: Apart from optimization of acute medication, medical interventions did not significantly differentiate between the current and previous HFM+AMO groups. Use of preventive pharmacological medication was low in both groups. Adults with current HFM+AMO more often had health concerns, yet both groups expressed concerns of disease burden. Optimization of acute and preventive medication and addressing mental/emotional health concerns of patients are areas where migraine care may impact outcomes regardless of their disease burden. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To characterize the direct impact of monthly headache days (MHDs) on health‐related quality of life (HRQoL) in people with migraine and the potential mediating effects of anxiety, depression, and allodynia. Background: Although the general relationship between increased migraine frequency (i.e., MHDs) and reduced HRQoL is well established, the degree to which reduced HRQoL is due to a direct effect of increased MHDs or attributable to mediating factors remains uncertain. Methods: Cross‐sectional baseline data from participants with migraine who completed the Core and Comorbidities/Endophenotypes modules in the 2012–2013 US Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes (CaMEO) study, a longitudinal web‐based survey study, were analyzed. The potential contribution of depression, anxiety, and/or allodynia to the observed effects of MHDs on HRQoL as measured by the Migraine‐Specific Quality‐of‐Life Questionnaire version 2.1 (MSQ) was evaluated. Results: A total of 12,715 respondents were included in the analyses. The MSQ domain scores demonstrated progressive declines with increasing MHD categories (B = −1.23 to −0.60; p < 0.001). The observed HRQoL decrements associated with increasing MHDs were partially mediated by the presence of depression, anxiety, and allodynia. The MHD values predicted 24.0%–32.4% of the observed variation in the MSQ domains. Depression mediated 15.2%–24.3%, allodynia mediated 9.6%–16.1%, and anxiety mediated 2.3%–6.0% of the observed MHD effects on the MSQ. Conclusions: Increased MHD values were associated with lower MSQ scores; the impact of MHDs on the MSQ domain scores was partially mediated by the presence of depression, anxiety, and allodynia. MHDs remain the predominant driver of the MSQ variation; moreover, most of the variation in the MSQ remains unexplained by the variables we analyzed. Future longitudinal analyses and studies may help clarify the contribution of MHDs, comorbidities, and other factors to changes in HRQoL. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]